DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 – Statutory category?
Claims 1-17 are directed to statutory categories of an apparatuses, articles of manufacture, and processes. Thus, the claims meet Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One – Abstract idea?
Claims 1-17 recite an abstract idea, namely rules for a multi-player game that organize and evaluate reciprocal player interactions.
Independent claims 1, 16, & 17 recite rules under which players generate marks that move to another player’s area, the other player is evaluated on whether a responsive operation is performed at arrival, and points are calculated based on the players’ operations. These limitations recite rules for a game and the organization and evaluation of interactions between players. Such limitations are within the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity, including managing interactions between people and following rules or instructions.
The claims further recite evaluation of player provided information according to the game rules, such as determining whether an operation occurs at a specified time and calculating points based on that determination. Such collection, comparison, analysis, and presentation of information is also abstract. Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit has also held that claims directed to rules for playing games are directed to an abstract idea. In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-20 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Dependent claims 2-15 recite further rules for conducting, presenting, or scoring the game, as well as mathematical concepts. For example, claims 2-5, 7, & 12-15 recite further rules, layout, visual presentation, and scoring mechanics of the abstract game interaction. They do not, by themselves, recite any improvement to computer, display, input or audio technology. Similarly, claims 6, 8-10 recite mathematical concepts such as differences, ratios, counting, etc. These additional use of results to score a game does not remove the claims from the abstract idea realm.
Accordingly, claims 1-17 each recite a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical application?
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements recited in the claims including at least one processor, display screen, player areas, touch operations, tone marks, audio output, storage medium/program, etc., each of which are invoked as generic tools for implementing and presenting the game rules. The claims do not recite an asserted improvement in computer functionality, display technology, touch sensing, audio processing, network operation, or any technological field.
Rather, the display presents moving tone marks, the processor determines whether the player operations satisfy the recited game timing rules, and the system calculates and presents points. These are uses of generic computer/display/input arrangements known in the art to automate and administer the abstract rules of a game.
The recitation of a particular visual arrangement or user interface presentation does not itself integrate the abstract idea into a practical application where the claims does not recite a technological improvement in the operation of the computer or interface. The claims seek to monopolize the game rules concept of sending reciprocal marks between players, evaluating responses, and scoring the interaction, implemented on conventional computing elements.
Accordingly, the claims use only generic technology as a tool to implement and present abstract game rules and mathematical scoring concepts, rather than integration those exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B – Inventive concept?
The additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and mathematical concepts identified above.
The claims recite generic computer components performing their ordinary and expected functions. The processor, display, touch input, audio output, storage medium, and program instructions are recited at a high level of generality and perform said ordinary and expected functions of receiving input, displaying visual information, moving displayed objects, determining timing, processing information, generating sound, and/or storing/executing instructions. The claims do not recite a non-conventional arrangement of those components or a technological solution to a technological problem. Moreover, recitations such as score or points calculations is likewise part of the abstract game rules scheme, not an inventive concept. Similarly, a determination of whether a player acted at the time a mark arrived is merely applying game timing rules. And the use of multiple player areas, operation areas, and opposing movement paths merely adds field-of-use or game format/layout restrictions to the abstract rules.
The specification describes the claimed hardware at a high level of generality as including conventional processing and display/input/output components, and identifies ordinary examples of such components (paragraphs 0071-0076). Accordingly, the following elements are found, individually and in combination, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the gaming arts: use of general-purpose processor to execute instructions and calculate, use of a display to present graphical objects, player areas, scores, game layouts, etc., use of a touch-sensitive screen to receive player input, use of a speaker or the like to produce game sound, and use of conventional memory to store said instructions.
Accordingly, the claims do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 & 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, 9, & 10 recites “the communication point” in at least one instance within these claims, where it appears unclear if the associated recitations pertain to a single communication point of the “communication points” recited in other claims, such as independent claims 1, 16, & 17. Accordingly, it appears unclear whether these are drafting errors resulting in inconsistency between plural and non-plural recitations of communication points.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the at least one of the tone mark generating operation or the tone output operation is the tone mark generating operation”, which appears awkwardly recited. For examination purposes, clearly the “tone mark generating operation” is “the tone mark generating operation”. Moreover, the phrase “the at least one” lacks clear antecedent referent, as claim 5 from which claim 7 depends, recites two separate “at least one” limitations.
Claim 8 recites “…in a predetermined period of from a past point in time to the current time” which is grammatically incomplete and does not distinctly define the temporal interval used to count the second player’s operations.
Claims 10 & 11 recite multiple recitations of “the count” which lack antecedent basis as there appears to be no previously defined “count”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, & 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abe (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0206422).
Claims 1, 16, & 17: Abe discloses an entertainment system comprising at least one processor (paragraphs 0061-0071) configured to:
generate a tone mark on a display screen in response to a tone mark generating operation by a first player and move the tone mark toward a second player area provided on the display screen (paragraphs 0099-0105 and figure 4, wherein Abe discloses that when an attack player (first player) makes an attack rhythm input on one of the attacker’s button images, a rhythm image appears at the position of that button and moves toward the corresponding button image in the defending player’s (second player) area);
generate a tone mark on the display screen in response to a tone mark generating operation by a second player and move the tone mark toward a first player area provided on the display screen (paragraphs 0092-0093, 0099-0106 and figure 4, wherein Abe teaches that the first and second players alternate attacking player and defending player roles, so as to enable the second player, who is now the attacking player to generate a tone mark with their button images to move toward the corresponding button image of the first player, who is now the defending player);
determine whether the first player performs a tone output operation at a time when the tone mark generated by the second player arrives at the first player area (paragraphs 0081-0083, 0099-0106, 0127-0135, wherein Abe discloses that during a defender player’s input period, the defender makes an input on the relevant button image (a tone output operation) at the timing at which the corresponding tone mark or rhythm image arrives at the button image, where Abe evaluates whether the timing of each defense input coincides with the timing of the model rhythm, as such this process is performed for the first player when the first player is the defending player);
determine whether the second player performs a tone output operation at a time when the tone mark generated by the first player arrives at the second player area (paragraphs 0081-0083, 0099-0106, 0127-0135, wherein Abe discloses that during a defender player’s input period, the defender makes an input on the relevant button image (a tone output operation) at the timing at which the corresponding tone mark or rhythm image arrives at the button image, where Abe evaluates whether the timing of each defense input coincides with the timing of the model rhythm, as such this process is performed for the second player when the second player is the defending player); and
calculate an amount of communication points based on at least one of the tone mark generating operation or the tone output operation by the first player and at least one of the tone mark generating operation or the tone output operation by the second player (paragraphs 0083-0084 & 0129-0136, wherein Abe calculates scores from the relationship between the attacker-generated model rhythm and the defender’s responsive input, such that in particular when the defender does not successfully following the model rhythm, points are added to the attacker’s score; wherein the amount of points varies with the quality/timing of the defense input, and an omitted response by a defender can produce a higher score for an attacker; Abe also teaches cooperative variation in which points arising from the defending player’s rhythm input are used as a common score among all players; see paragraph 0175, thus, at least some of these scoring mechanics or scoring schemes are interpreted as the claimed calculation of communication points).
Regarding claims 16 & 17: all of the above applies, wherein Abe clearly similarly anticipates a computer being caused to perform a method for controlling an entertainment system as detailed above by execution of a program stored on a non-transitory information storage medium by a computer.
Claim 2: Abe discloses that the at least one processor is configured to control a background including at least sound based on the communication point, the sound being output from an audio output unit (paragraphs 0073, 0124, wherein Abe discloses the game is a music game, as such music sound is played in accordance with scoring, difficulty, etc.). Abe also discloses video for the music game being displayed via a terminal (figure 4).
Claim 3: Abe discloses that each player’s tone mark generating operation is a touch operation in their respective player area (paragraphs 0067, 0099-0101, 0104).
Claim 4: Abe discloses that a defending or receiving player performs at ouch operation at the time the arriving tone mark or rhythm image reaches the receiving player’s area, or more specifically, Abe teaches that the defending player presses or touches the relevant button image “at a timing at which each rhythm image 33 arrives at the position of the button image” (paragraphs 0105-0106).
Claim 5: Abe discloses comparing the at least one of the tone mark generating operation or the tone output operation by the first player and the at least one of the tone mark generating operation or the tone output operation by the second player, and calculate the communication points based on a result of the comparison (paragraphs 0079-0083, 0117-0119, 0127-0135, wherein Abe discloses generating a model rhythm from the attack rhythm input of one player and comparing that model rhythm, which contains timing and information derived from that player’s input, with the responsive defense rhythm input of the other player to calculate points).
Claim 7: Abe discloses that at least one of the tone mark generating operation or the tone output operation is the tone mark generating operation (i.e. clearly at least the “the tone mark generating operation” as discussed early is “the tone mark generating operation”).
Claims 12-14: Abe discloses that each player has multiple operation areas, such as three button images (figure 4). Abe also discusses that each attacker-side button input can generating a corresponding rhythm image or rhythm model event. Abe discloses correspondence between multiple source operation areas and multiple destination operation areas, such that Abe explains that the first button for one player is equivalent to the first button for the other player, with corresponding second and third buttons (figure 4). Abe also teaches that a rhythm image generated at an attacking player’s side button moves to the corresponding defending player’s side button (paragraphs 0099-0106). Accordingly, Abe discloses generating a first tone mark at a first operation area of the first player and moving it to a corresponding third operation area of the second player, and similarly generating a second tone mark at the second operation area of the first player and moving it to a corresponding fourth operation area of the second player). Abe also discloses reversing corresponding movement after the player’s exchange roles. In particular, Abe teaches that rhythm images appear at button images for the new attacking player and move to corresponding button images for the new defending player after a role switch (paragraph 0106).
Claim 15: Abe discloses moving the tone marks across respective lanes defined so as to be opposed to each other across a center line of the display screen (figure 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6, 8, & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe, as applied to claims 1-5, 7, & 12-17, where applicable.
Claims 6, 8, & 9: Abe discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for explicitly disclosing a scoring scheme in which calculation of the communication points is based on a difference between a count value of at least the tone output operation by the first player in a predetermined time before a current time to the current time and a count value of the tone output operation by the second player in a predetermined period of time past a point in time to the current time, wherein an increase to the communication points is also based on the count of the tone output operation by the first player and the count of the tone output operation by the second player each increase. Regardless of the deficiency, these are scoring mechanics that are well established in the arts, such as music rhythm games that have been available for decades that increase scoring based on the operation of players performing musical note input (see prior art of record). Moreover, other well-known games have provided differencing calculations for scoring, such as old and well known corn toss that includes cancelation scoring, in which scores are increased by the differences, i.e. a team with a higher score at the end of a round adds the difference to their total. The Examiner takes Official Notice that the variety of scoring or point calculation mechanics as recited in claims 6, 8, or 9 would have been a matter of choice to a person skilled in the art to have modified Abe to implement a desired scoring system. Abe is directed to turn-based gaming in which each player has a turn being the attacking player and defending player, and points are added based on input operations to tone marks, such that it would have been obvious to implement the scoring mechanics as claimed in such a turn-based game in which each player has a predetermined turn period. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abe with different scoring mechanics to enable a game designer to arrive at a desired game format.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILAP SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KANG HU can be reached at 571-270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights